The great thing about Mercurial, or any decentralized system, is that you don't have to "start another repository" - you can use the existing repository and host it. Changes can be moved seamlessly between all copies of the repository.
On Saturday 27 October 2007 09:32:12 KHMan wrote: > [sorry if this is sent twice, I'm in between switching e-mails] > > Sanghyeon Seo wrote: > > 2007/10/27, Kein-Hong Man <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Speaking as a lurker... Now that Mercurial isn't a do-or-die > >> requirement on the part of the maintainer, is it possible that the > >> tcc community go back to the official repository? David Wheeler > >> already has access to it. Lots of CVS/SVN users still get by... > > > > What's wrong with Mercurial? > > The official repository is not Mercurial, I believe. There is no > reason to continue with another "fork" now, is there? Given a > choice of (1) starting another Mercurial repository of tcc or (2) > working with the official repository and aim for a 0.9.24 release, > as a fairly neutral bystander, I definitely prefer to see the > latter. It will also make the work of all the package maintainers > easier, no more ambiguity. > > The bigger issue is not which repository to use, it is for someone > experienced to step up to lead and move the project forward and > stick to it for some time. Since tcc itself does not have any > religious issues to stop it from becoming a single entity again, > an inclusive stance would be nice. The lowest common denominator > is probably not sexy for some people, but it provides the lowest > barrier to participation. _______________________________________________ Tinycc-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/tinycc-devel
